Missed edit window.
Here is a cite: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/22/obama-ballyhoos-afghan-stance/
The President is planning on withdrawing troops by 2014. See what happens then.
This. Plus ending the mandatory “and may God bless the United States of America” at the end of every single speech.
I’d like to see him take on voting. Push a federal law that states with voter ID laws on the books get no federal funding whatsoever.
What we’ll get is more Republican obstruction. They’d much rather see a new Depression than recovery if it would mean permanent control of Congress and the White House.
When was that, exactly?
I think he’ll do more of the same and the Republicans will do more of the same. The real test will be the 2014 election - if the Democrats can actually take back some seats, he’ll get a lot more done. If they lose more seats, it’ll be even more gridlock and pointlessness.
He never had 60 senators and you know it.
Really? I’ve seen that 60 Senators figure posted here several times. I’m sure it must be factually based.
I expect to not have Romney in the White House. That means that abortion and birth control won’t be outlawed, prayer and creationism won’t be forced into our schools, taxes on the wealthy won’t be eliminated and regulations on industry won’t be thrown out the window so a few rich people can make a quick buck (cough Koch cough.) Isn’t that enough? If Obama actually does something useful, that’s just gravy.
Lol. There were 59 dem senators after the election, then Specter became a democrat because he wouldn’t win his primary. 59 + 1 = 60.
It doesn’t matter if it was 60, or 59 or 58. If Obama couldn’t/wouldn’t do something with a supermajority in congress, he likely won’t be able to do it with a smaller majority in the senate and the house being GOP (which is what will probably still be the case after 2012).
Yup. I’ll definitely be voting for Obama for this reason, and not for the same reasons I voted for him in 2008. I think there are a lot of people in the, “I disapprove of Obama overall, wish he were a better president, but I’m voting for him anyway because Mitt Romney and the republicans are truly scary.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe he made a promise to get out of Afghanistan, just to focus our attention on it. I do expect us to get out in his second term. We damn well better.
ETA: Oops, missed howye’s response. But of course the repeat all kinds of bullshit!
That is a big motivation for me (keeping the plutocrats and theocrats out of power, plus if Obama is reelected the affordable care act goes into effect in 2014, making it much harder to repeal in 2017 after the public have a few years to get used to it.
Yeah, technically, the Democrats had a 60-seat majority in the Senate…if you count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat. The thing is, that ought to be a clear governing majority, under the rules as laid out in the Constitution–60 Senators! Over 250 Representatives! And the Presidency! Yessir, the Dems are gonna really get some stuff done now!
But of course, thanks to the arcane rules the Senate has made up for itself, a 60-seat “supermajority” is, in reality, a razor-thin majority. Functionally, 60 seats has become the equivalent of 50-seats-plus-Joe-Biden. Most people would understand that if the Republicrats or the Demopublicans had the White House, a reasonable majority of the House of Representatives, and 50 Senate seats plus the Veep, they would technically have control of all three legislation-passing arms of the federal government…but clearly it doesn’t take much to prevent them from getting their agenda passed unscathed.
I’m looking at your link and your math needs some work. I’m not seeing the number “60” anywhere on it. At best there was a period between July and September 2009 when they had a filibuster-proof majority including the two Independents (Lieberman and Sanders) who caucus with them, after Norm Coleman finally ran out of delaying tactics to keep Franken from sitting and before Kennedy died. Not a big window for sweeping change, even if one could get the entire group to co-operate.
Which will once again be due to obstructionist Republicans who would vote against their own legislation if Obama supported it (as indeed they have). Let’s not pretend the Congressional GOP can be reasoned with, bargained with or assuaged in any way. They’ve stated openly they won’t play ball. I doubt that will change in the next Congress unless they lose too many seats to make that tactic work.
It will be all planning for his third term, that’s when the socialism and compulsory gay marriage is coming.
Do not forget the introduction of our secret reptilian masters in a joint session of Congress in February of 2013.
And we find out that they are all Muslim as well.
Is that the “joint session” where Congress legalizes marijuana?
My math needs work? What is hard to understand about 57 democrats, 2 independents and 1 Arlen Specter changing parties = 60?
There was a second period from September 2009 to February 2010 when the dems had 60 senate seats.
I tend to think this is part of why the dems lost so bad in 2010. Even with supermajorities the dems came across as out maneuvered in the senate and whatever legislation they passed had to be watered down to make all legislation palatable to the most conservative democrats. Imagine what it would do to morale if the GOP had 60 senators but every bill had to be made liberal enough for Collins and Snowe to vote for it. People wouldn’t bother to vote, which is what happened in 2010. Dems stayed home and the GOP went to the polls. Why give the dems a super majority if they are just going to be outmaneuvered and have to water down everything they do to make people like Conrad or Baucus vote for it.
A second depression, a major terrorist attack, and finally some more much needed action regarding professional and college sports.
Why give Dems a majority? Because even when they had to water down their bills they passed a lot of bills, and big bills. The 111th Congress was very productive - they passed 383 Public Laws, many of them substantial and a few landmark. Thomas cite - pick the Congress and then click on the lists of Public Laws for that Congress and cite from Wikipedia
The 112th Congress has, thus far, only passed 174 Public Laws - about half as many as the 111th. You can use the same Thomas link I posted above, and here’s the Wiki cite.
I’m 100% behind giving dems a majority. But a super majority, that is insanely difficult unless they have a lot of things going for them. Plus like I said, they do have to water things down and get outgunned in the senate anyway.
When the dems filibustered judges in 2005, the GOP threatened the nuclear option. It intimidated the dems into submission. The dems aren’t able/willing to play tough like that, so they get outclassed.
[QUOTE=Will Rogers]
I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat.
[/quote]
And now we can go back to the topic - FDR’s second term I think it was.